Seòmar agus comataidhean

I know. I am letting the question hang, Mr Doris, because that is the question that you should be asking your Government.

I think that Bob Doris is talking about something entirely different, and being very childish politically, because the issue is about a specific situation in Newcastleton that pertains to individuals there. It concerns a company called Oxygen Conservation, which has bought 13,000 acres of natural moorland habitat and has been culling goats. The purchase was grant funded by the Scottish Government, so where is its oversight of all the land that was purchased with its funding?

Yes, and that would be expected for goats that are, for example, of a certain age or injured, but not to the extent of this cull. The company wanted to begin a cull that was set to reduce the number of wild goats from 138 to 20. The member might be interested to know that the media release from the Wild Goat Conservation Group today said that the purpose of the cull was to satisfy requirements that had to be met before the Scottish Government would give grants to the rewilding company to plant trees on its hill ground. The cull would result in quite a serious difference in the number of wild goats. Does that answer your question?

The local community says that the goats embody the very spirit of our hills and that they are a living relic of Scottish clan crofting culture, and yet, despite their importance, wild goats have no legal protection in Scotland. The Government has stated that it has

“no plans to provide full legal protected status for primitive goats, or feral goats”.

That lack of protection has left them vulnerable and their future increasingly uncertain. My amendment seeks to ensure that we have a transparent discussion about the purpose, ethics and community impacts of natural capital investments. It would embed community voices in the decision-making process and help to ensure that investment in our natural environment is guided by clear ethical principles.

I move amendment 478.

I understand that you are finished; I wanted to hear the end of your sentence, so I am sorry about that. The six principles of natural investment miss the key point, which is that investors can come in and, aside from those six principles, do pretty much what they want in relation to meeting the Government’s net zero targets. Because the species has no legal protection, we find ourselves in a situation in which an investment company, which is possibly offshored and is probably creating absolutely zero jobs in a community such as Newcastleton, can get around the six principles of natural investment and not adhere to what the community wants. We are at a really important juncture. The Government needs to look at this, because we are at the very start of the natural investment process. Pension companies will buy up swathes of land and do pretty much what they want, without the say of the communities. As you know, cabinet secretary, the petition has 12,000 signatures. The strength of feeling in the community is unbelievable.

Would the Government consider looking at the six principles and, for example, expanding the principle of ethical investment—on the basis of the arguments that I have been making on behalf of the community—and encompassing it in separate principles?

Alternatively, would the cabinet secretary consider working with me on an amendment that could recognise that the principles have not kept up with the nature of the investment?

May I come back in, convener? It is an important point.

Amendment 478 would require ministers to

“prepare and publish an ethical framework for natural capital investment”

within one year of the bill receiving royal assent. The framework must be developed in consultation with individuals and communities that have a legitimate interest in natural capital investment.

Amendment 478 was prompted by discussions with my constituents in Newcastleton, who have raised serious concerns about the impact of recent investment practices on their local environment and heritage. In March 2023, an investment company acquired 11,400 acres of Langholm moor, with the aim of promoting carbon sequestration and generating carbon credits. However, in February this year, the same company announced plans to cull 85 per cent of the ancient herd of wild goats on the moor. The action was to be carried out during the breeding season and is causing significant distress in the community. Those goats are not only of ecological importance but are of significant cultural and heritage value. More than 12,000 local residents have signed a petition for the goats’ protection.

For generations, families have enjoyed seeing those animals on the hills, and people travel from across the country to catch a glimpse of them. The wild goats have inhabited the moorlands between Newcastleton and Langholm for centuries. They are fully wild and form part of the delicate ecology of those protected uplands.

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

I intend to press amendment 478, to test the room on what I believe are quite strong points.

I have set out why I believe that the natural investment framework should be encompassed in the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. The cabinet secretary said that Oxygen Conservation, which is the company that has bought 13,000 acres of moorland habitat, should be guided by the six principles for responsible investment in natural capital. If that is true, it should also adhere to those principles. The Government should lean on the company to desist from culling the goats, which is against those principles. The Government guidelines are clearly not working and it needs to introduce something stronger.

The bill’s provisions on natural capital investment could be expanded even further. Why would we want people who invest in Scotland to run riot, affecting issues that communities are passionate about, and ignoring really thorny issues, just so that they can meet the net zero targets? That would not be right.

The Government’s amendment 128 rightly seeks to provide powers to exempt some transactions from the prohibition on sale under prior notification—an issue that was highlighted in evidence at stage 1—and would provide a much-needed element of common sense in those sections.

There are too many transaction types to list in the bill, so having a regulation-making power is the right way to go. However, there is a real risk that, as drafted, amendment 128 will not achieve the required outcome. I understand that the wording has been lifted from other anti-avoidance measures related to the right to buy, but the proposed new subsection (4) in that amendment is problematic in that context. It provides that a series of transactions that have the effect of avoiding the community’s right to buy may not be eligible for exemption from prior notification. That would catch the types of transactions that are referred to in amendment 128, because the outcome would be the avoidance of the formal community right-to-buy process, but the purpose may not have been to frustrate community ownership or avoid compliance with legislation.

In many cases, the opposite would be the case—in fact, the intention may have been to achieve a number of transfers to communities, tenants and others. We have seen examples of that. For example, in my constituency in the Borders, Buccleuch Estates and its tenants, farmers, communities and other relevant parties are embarking on discussions about a programme of voluntary land sales and are expending significant sums of money to do that. I believe that those are positive steps towards greater community ownership, and that could be frustrated by the inclusion of the words

“or effect, or one of the main purposes or effects”

in this context. Removing them from the Government’s amendment would provide comfort that the transfers to communities or sitting tenants would not be open to delay or challenge.

I have only been dipping in and out of this committee to move amendments, but I have the feeling, from some of the cabinet secretary’s comments, that, as has been the case in relation to other legislation that has been passed in the rural context, there is an element of mistrust around this issue. The view that my amendment 128A would make it difficult to close loopholes goes against the grain of what I am trying to achieve, which is to ensure that there is not a delay for sitting tenants or communities in that context.